gcc-4.5/gcc/config/i386/i386.md:
;; %%% bts, btr, btc, bt.
;; In general these instructions are *slow* when applied to memory,
;; since they enforce atomic operation. When applied to registers,
I haven't found documented confirmation that these instructions are atomic
without a lock prefix,
;; %%% bts, btr, btc, bt.
;; In general these instructions are *slow* when applied to memory,
;; since they enforce atomic operation. When applied to registers,
I haven't found documented confirmation that these instructions are atomic
without a lock prefix,
having checked Intel and AMD
Subject: Re: atomicity of x86 bt/bts/btr/btc?
From: foxmuldrsterm
To: jay.krell
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:52:34 -0500
;; %%% bts, btr, btc, bt.
;; In general these instructions are *slow* when applied to memory,
;; since
They do not automatically lock the bus. They will lock the bus with the
explicit LOCK prefix, and BTS is typically used for an atomic read/write
operation.
Thanks Rick.
I'll go back to using them.
I'm optimizing mainly for size.
The comment should perhaps be amended.
The since they
Subject: RE: atomicity of x86 bt/bts/btr/btc?
From: foxmuldrster
To: jay
CC: gcc
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:05:26 -0500
They do not automatically lock the bus. They will lock the bus with the
explicit LOCK prefix, and BTS is typically used for
Hi,
in builtins.c:expand_builtin_setjmp_receiver I see the following code:
827 /* Now put in the code to restore the frame pointer, and argument
828 pointer, if needed. */
829 #ifdef HAVE_nonlocal_goto
830 if (! HAVE_nonlocal_goto)
831 #endif
832 {
833 emit_move_insn
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for answer. I managed to make use of an architecture trick which allows
me to get the secondary reload via only one intermediary register, but still
have some comments to what you wrote me.
1.Is it possible to do the secondary reload via 2
intermediary registers?
As far as
Jay K jay.kr...@cornell.edu writes:
It might be nice if optimizing for size would use them with code like e.g.:
I encourage you to file a missed-optimization bug at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla , so that this is not forgotten.
Ian
Frederic Riss frederic.r...@gmail.com writes:
in builtins.c:expand_builtin_setjmp_receiver I see the following code:
827 /* Now put in the code to restore the frame pointer, and argument
828 pointer, if needed. */
829 #ifdef HAVE_nonlocal_goto
830 if (! HAVE_nonlocal_goto)
831
On 10/18/2010 03:41 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 18.10.2010 11:31, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is
On 19.10.2010 17:57, Jie Zhang wrote:
Removing the failing assert fixes the test case. But I wonder why not just
get max_issue correct. I'm testing the attached patch. IMHO, max_issue
looks confusing.
* The concept of ISSUE POINT has never been used since the code landed in
repository.
* In
On 10/19/10 6:16 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
...
I agree that ISSUE_POINTS can be removed, as it was not used (maybe
Maxim can comment more on this).
I too agree with removing ISSUE_POINTS, it never found any use.
Regards,
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
CodeSourcery
ma...@codesourcery.com
(650)
On 10/19/2010 10:16 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 19.10.2010 17:57, Jie Zhang wrote:
Removing the failing assert fixes the test case. But I wonder why not
just
get max_issue correct. I'm testing the attached patch. IMHO, max_issue
looks confusing.
* The concept of ISSUE POINT has never been
Hello,
I wrote here before a few months ago, I'm trying to port GCC to a simple
RISC machine and I have two problems I don't seem to be able to fix. I'm
using gcc 4.4.3 for both compiling and as source code.
1. I have the following code:
---
extern void doSmth();
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Jaroslav Hajek high...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've been experimenting with sorting recently and I have noticed a
possibility to slightly optimize the sorting of std::pair values using
the default operator. This is, I believe, a common usage case to
Looking for advice here -- while I haven't seen this bug trigger in
the mainline, it triggers with the range splitting code I've been
working on.
Reload has the ability to replace a pseudo with its equivalent memory
location. This is fine and good.
Imagine:
1. We have a pseudo (call
I'm getting ready to release plug-in code, and I want to have a very
clear idea about licensing before I release. I'm leaning towards
releasing everything as GPLv3, but I do want to know exactly what is
and isn't allowed.
I know this issue was debated quite intensely before plug-in support
got
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:05:51 -0400
Justin Seyster jrs...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting ready to release plug-in code, and I want to have a very
clear idea about licensing before I release. I'm leaning towards
releasing everything as GPLv3, but I do want to know exactly what is
and isn't
Radu Hobincu radu.hobi...@arh.pub.ro writes:
1. I have the following code:
---
extern void doSmth();
void bugTest(){
doSmth();
}
---
It compiles fine with -O0, but when I try to use -O3, I get the following
compiler error:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
Reload has the ability to replace a pseudo with its equivalent memory
location. This is fine and good.
Imagine:
1. We have a pseudo (call is pseudo A) with a read-only memory
equivalent. Pseudo A does not get a hard reg
2. Pseudo A crosses a call
Justin Seyster jrs...@gmail.com writes:
I'm getting ready to release plug-in code, and I want to have a very
clear idea about licensing before I release. I'm leaning towards
releasing everything as GPLv3, but I do want to know exactly what is
and isn't allowed.
GPLv3 is fine.
I know this
It seems that you want to generate two .int statements. My question is
whether you can load those in a single load instruction, or whether you
also need to generate multiple load instructions.
I need to generate multiple load instructions
This is OK if you add LABEL_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP, LOOP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP,
LABEL_ALIGN_AFTER_BARRIER_MAX_SKIP, and JUMP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP to the
/* Old target macros that have moved to the target hooks structure. */
#pragma GCC poison list in system.h.
Thanks, committed with that change.
Thanks for this advice. The link to the GCC Exception was especially helpful.
The trick here is that I'm actually releasing a library designed to be
linked into plug-ins. I want the library itself to be copyleft but
for plug-in authors to retain any licensing flexibility that they
would have
[quote]
Target Hook: int TARGET_SCHED_ISSUE_RATE (void)
[snip]
Although the insn scheduler can define itself the possibility of issue
an insn on the same cycle, the value can serve as an additional
constraint to issue insns on the same simulated processor cycle
[snip]
[/quote]
it should
My ongoing work to implement the multilib selection changes described
at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00063.html will in due
course require option-related hooks to be shared between the driver
and the compilers proper (cc1 etc.). As we do not currently have a
hooks system in the driver,
Phung Nguyen nhph...@gmail.com writes:
It seems that you want to generate two .int statements. My question is
whether you can load those in a single load instruction, or whether you
also need to generate multiple load instructions.
I need to generate multiple load instructions
In that
Justin Seyster jrs...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for this advice. The link to the GCC Exception was especially helpful.
The trick here is that I'm actually releasing a library designed to be
linked into plug-ins. I want the library itself to be copyleft but
for plug-in authors to retain any
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20101019 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20101019/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
Summary: incorrect precision of sqrtf builtin for x87
arithmetic (-mfpmath=387)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hello,
After being pointed to a thread about unexpected NaNs
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1999-10/msg00410.html), I decided to
try here to see if the ghost I have in my code rings a bell with
anyone...
In short, I have a trigger series of events that I can set off in my
code (an X11 data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46081
Summary: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-10.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i?86-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46078
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46077
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46081
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-19 10:50:54
UTC ---
Executing on host: /export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/xgcc
-B/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46076
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
--- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19
10:55:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Not really, there are about 300 lines of new code (mostly in a new routine).
It might be that only the change in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46081
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19
11:06:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 19 11:06:29 2010
New Revision: 165697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165697
Log:
2010-10-19 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46081
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46077
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43414
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-19 12:30:43 UTC ---
Author: fxcoudert
Date: Tue Oct 19 12:30:35 2010
New Revision: 165699
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165699
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43414
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46024
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46079
Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37360
Jie Zhang jiez at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiez at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46082
Summary: libgcj fails to build in current 4.5 branch
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libgcj
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45962
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #87 from Steve Ellcey sje at cup dot hp.com 2010-10-19 16:09:57
UTC ---
My testing on 32 bit and 64 bit PA boxes went fine. The patch looks good to
me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46083
Summary: gcc.dg/initpri1.c FAILs with -flto/-fwhopr (attribute
constructor/destructor doesn't work)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37360
--- Comment #21 from Jie Zhang jiez at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19 16:58:58
UTC ---
Another way to fix this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-10/msg00281.html
David, are you still interested to try this patch on sb1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37360
--- Comment #22 from David Daney daney at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19 17:38:32
UTC ---
I no longer have access to an SB1. But you should be able to run the test case
on a cross compiler to see how it is affected by any patch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Klimov alserkli at inbox dot ru 2010-10-19
18:22:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 22086
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22086
simple testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
Alexander Klimov alserkli at inbox dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[C++0x] range-based for |[C++0x]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46084
Summary: gcc.dg/split-4.c failed with -mavx -m32
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
Summary: [4..6 Regression]
gcc.dg/vect/fast-math-vect-reduc-[57].c failed with
-mavx -ffast-math -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-19 19:48:35
UTC ---
[...@gnu-18 gcc]$ cat x.c
extern void abort ();
float b[16] = {0,3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36,39,42,45};
float c[16] =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41757
Diego Novillo dnovillo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-19
20:35:01 UTC ---
Many thanks Alexander.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46056
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
Summary: fail to build gcc 4.5.2 on sparc64-portbld-freebsd9.0
- configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object
files: cannot compile
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19
21:06:26 UTC ---
cc1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault: 11
Does this happen every time?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
--- Comment #2 from Anton Shterenlikht mexas at bristol dot ac.uk 2010-10-19
21:10:00 UTC ---
yes
I've repeated it maybe 5-10 times over the last several weeks.
I don't know if this is a regression. I think lapack dependency
in freebsd ports
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43657
--- Comment #4 from Changpeng Fang changpeng.fang at amd dot com 2010-10-19
21:27:46 UTC ---
for (k = 0; k 32; k++)
{
res = 0;
for (j = 0; j 32; j++)
for (i = 0; i 32; i++)
{
next = a[i][j];
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-19 21:32:05
UTC ---
(define_expand reduc_splus_v8sf
[(match_operand:V8SF 0 register_operand )
(match_operand:V8SF 1 register_operand )]
TARGET_AVX
{
rtx tmp = gen_reg_rtx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2010-10-19
21:51:44 UTC ---
I'd like to add: We've been able to work around this issue in our C codebase
simply by ensuring that every static variable is initialized with a value. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44503
Changpeng Fang changpeng.fang at amd dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46086
--- Comment #4 from Anton Shterenlikht mexas at bristol dot ac.uk 2010-10-19
22:07:54 UTC ---
what specifically?
The versions of the libraries mentioned on my box are
above the minimum recommended:
mpfr-3.0.0
gmp-5.0.1
binutils-2.20.1_3
or did
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23280
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46085
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45962
--- Comment #17 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19
22:21:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
MAX_STACK_ALIGNMENT should be MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT if you support
the full stack re-alignment scheme.
Is there a particular
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46084
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-10-19 22:42:20
UTC ---
This one fails without AVX instructions:
[...@gnu-18 gcc]$ ./xgcc -B./
/export/gnu/import/git/gcc-avx/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/split-4.c -mavx -m32
-fsplit-stack -S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46046
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-10-19 22:58:14 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 19 22:58:11 2010
New Revision: 165708
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165708
Log:
/cp
2010-10-19
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46046
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44776
Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46087
Summary: Double precision values, when read in from data file,
include random trailing numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46087
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45962
--- Comment #18 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-19
23:21:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Is there a particular reason it should be MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT?
No. For ELF, that just means arbitrarily large.
Hm, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46088
Summary: [4.6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in
ix86_binary_operator_ok (i386.c:15025) with -Os
-fnon-call-exceptions -fpeel-loops
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46089
Summary: ICE: in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:861 with
-mcmodel=large -fsplit-stack
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46080
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent at vinc17 dot org 2010-10-20
01:51:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22089
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22089
sh script to test sqrtf
Similar problems can also be found with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42169
Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46088
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46090
Summary: 16 bit uint16_t puts non-zero in highest bits when
shifting
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46090
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46091
Summary: missed optimization: x86 bt/btc/bts instructions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo:
89 matches
Mail list logo
